Network Working Group R. Stewart
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 17, 2005 M. Tuexen
Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
G. Camarillo
Ericsson
September 16, 2004
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Security Threats
draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpthreat-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 17, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
Stream Control Transmission Protocol RFC2960 [2] is a multi-homed
transport protocol. As such, unique security threats exists that are
addressed in various ways within the protocol itself. This document
attempts to detail the known security threats and there
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
countermeasures as detailed in the current version of the SCTP
Implementors guide (SCTP-IG). It is hoped that this information will
provide some useful background information for many of the newest
requirements spelled out in the SCTP-IG.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Address Camping or stealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Association hijacking 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Association hijacking 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Bombing attack (amplification) 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Bombing attack (amplification) 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Association redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1 Attack details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3 Counter measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 14
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
1. Introduction
Stream Control Transmission Protocol RFC2960 [2] is a multi-homed
transport protocol. As such, unique security threats exists that are
addressed in various ways within the protocol itself. This document
attempts to detail the known security threats and there
countermeasures as detailed in the current version of the SCTP
Implementors guide (SCTP-IG). It is hoped that this information will
provide some useful background information for many of the newest
requirements spelled out in the SCTP-IG.
This work and some of the changes that went into the tenth version of
the SCTP-IG are much indebted to the paper on potential SCTP security
risks Effects [1] by Aura, Nikander and Camarillo. Without there
work some of these changes would remain undocumented and potential
threats.
The rest of this document will concentrate on the various attacks
that were illustrated in Effects [1] and detail what preventative
measures are now in place within the current SCTP standards (if any).
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
2. Address Camping or stealing
This attack is a form of denial of service attack crafted around
SCTP's multi-homing. In effect an illegitimate endpoint connects to
a server and "camps upon" or holds up a valid peers address. This is
done to prevent the legitimate peer from communicating with the
server.
2.1 Attack details
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| Evil | | Server | | Client |
| IP-A=+------------+=IP-X & Y=+-----------+=IP-C & D |
| Attacker | | | | Victim |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: Camping
Consider the scenario illustrated in Figure 1. The attacker
legitimately holds IP-A and wishes to prevent the 'Client-Victim'
from communication with the 'Server'. Note also that both the client
and server are multi-homed. The attacker first guesses the port
number our client uses in its association attempt. It then uses this
port and sets up an association with the server listing not only IP-A
but also IP-C as well in its initial INIT chunk. The server will
respond and setup the association noting that the attacker is
multi-homed holding both IP-A and IP-C.
Next the victim sends in an INIT message listing its two valid
addresses IP-C and IP-D. In response it will receive an ABORT
message with possibly an error code indicating that a new address was
added in its attempt to setup an existing association (a restart with
new addresses). At this point 'Client-Victim' is now prevented from
setting up an association with the server until the server realizes
that the attacker does not hold the address IP-C at some future
point.
2.2 Errata
This particular attack was discussed in detail on the SCTP
implementors list in March of 2003. Out of that discussion changes
were made in the BSD implementation that are now present in the
SCTP-IG. In closely examination this attack depends on a number of
specific things to occur.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
1) The attacker must setup the association before the victim and must
correctly guess the port number that the victim will use. If the
victim uses any other port number the attack will fail.
2) SCTP's existing HEARTBEAT mechanism as defined in RFC2960 [2] will
eventually catch this situation and abort the evil attackers
association. This may take several seconds based on default
HEARTBEAT timers but the attacker himself will lose any
association.
3) If the victim is either not multi-homed, or the address set that
it uses is completely camped upon by the attacker (in our example
if the attacker had included IP-D in its INIT as well), then the
client's INIT message would restart the attackers association
destroying it.
2.3 Counter measure
Version 10 of the SCTP-IG adds a new set of requirements to better
counter this attack. In particular the HEARTBEAT mechanism was
modified so that addresses unknown to an endpoint (i.e. presented in
an INIT with no pre-knowledge given by the application) enter a new
state called "UNCONFIRMED". During the time that any address is
UNCONFIRMED and yet considered available, heartbeating will be done
on those UNCONFIRMED addresses at an accelerated rate. This will
lessen the time that an attacker can "camp" on an address. In
particular the rate of heartbeats to UNCONFIRMED addresses is done
every RTO. Along with this expanded rate of heartbeating, a new 64
bit random nonce is required to be inside HEARTBEATs to UNCONFIRMED
addresses. In the HEARTBEAT-ACK the random nonce MUST match the
value sent in the HEARTBEAT before an address can leave the
UNCONFIRMED state. This will prevent an attacker from generating
false HEARTBEAT-ACK's with the victims source address(es).
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
3. Association hijacking 1
Association hijacking is the ability of some other user to assume the
session created by another endpoint. In cases of a true
man-in-the-middle only a strong end to end security model can prevent
this. However with the addition of the ADD-IP extension to SCTP a
endpoint that is NOT a man-in-the-middle may be able to assume
another endpoints association.
3.1 Attack details
The attack is made possible by any mechanism that lets an endpoint
acquire some other IP address that was recently in use by an SCTP
endpoint. For example in a moble network DHCP may be in use with
short IP address lifetimes to reassign IP addresses to migrant hosts.
IP-A DHCP-Server's Peer-Server
|
|
1 |-DHCP-Rel(IP-A)---->|
2 |------ASCONF(ADD-IP(IP-B), DEL-IP(IP-A)---->XXlost
time
|
|-DHCP-new-net------>|
3 |<---Assign (IP-A)
|
4 |<------------Tag:X-DATA()------------------
|
|-------------INIT()------------------------>
5 |<------------INIT-ACK()---------------------
|
6 |----ASCONF(ADD-IP(IP-Z),DEL-IP(IP-A))------>
Figure 2: Association Hijack via DHCP
At point 1, our valid client releases the IP address IP-A. It
presumably acquires a new address (IP-B) and sends an ASCONF to ADD
the new address and delete to old address at point 2, but this packet
is lost. Thus our peer (Peer-Server) has no idea that the former
peer is no longer at IP-A. Now at point 3 a new "evil" peer DHCP's
an address and happens to get the re-assigned address IP-A. Our
Peer-Server sends a chunk of DATA at point 4. This reveals to the
new owner of IP-A that the former owner of IP-A had an association
with Peer-Server. So at point 5 the new owner of IP-A sends an INIT.
The INIT-ACK is sent back and inside it is a COOKIE. The cookie
would of course hold tie-tags which would list both sets of tags
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
which could then be used at point 6 to add in any other IP addresses
that the owner of IP-A holds and thus acquire the association.
3.2 Errata
This attack depends on a number of events:
1) Both endpoints must support the ADD-IP extension.
2) One of the endpoints must be using the ADD-IP extension for
mobility.
3) The IP address must be acquired in such a way as to make the
endpoint the owner of that IP address as far as the network is
concerned.
4) The true peer must not get the ASCONF packet that deletes IP-A and
adds its new address to the peer before the new "evil" peer gets
control of the association.
5) The new "evil" peer must have an alternative address besides IP-A
that it can add to the association so it can delete IP-A
preventing the real peer from re-acquiring the association when it
finally retransmits the ASCONF (from step 2).
3.3 Counter measure
The latest SCTP-IG adds a new counter measure to this threat. It is
now required that Tie-Tags in the State-Cookie parameter not be the
actual tags. Instead a new set of two 32 bit nonce must be used to
represent the real tags within the association. This prevents the
attacker from acquiring the real tags and thus prevents this attack.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
4. Association hijacking 2
Association hijacking is the ability of some other user to assume the
session created by another endpoint. In cases where an attacker can
take over an IP-address he can easily restart the association. If
the peer does not pay attention to the restart notification the
attacker has taken over the association.
4.1 Attack details
Assume that an endpoint E1 having an IP-address A has an SCTP
association with endpoint E2. After the attacker has taken over the
IP-address A he waits for a packet from E2. After reception of the
packet the attacker can perform a full four way handshake using the
the IP-addresses and port numbers from the received packet. E2 will
consider this as a restart of the association. If and only if the
SCTP user of E2 does not process the restart notification the user
will not recognize that that association just restarted. From his
perspective the association has been hijacked.
4.2 Errata
This attack depends on a number of circumstances:
1) The IP address must be acquired in such a way as to make the evil
endpoint the owner of that IP address as far as the network or
local lan is concerned.
2) The attacker must receive a packet belonging to the association or
connection.
3) The other endpoints user does not pay attention to restart
notifications.
4.3 Counter measure
It is important to note that this attack is not based on a weakness
of the protocol but on the ignorance of the upper layer. This attack
is not possible if the upper layer processes the restart
notifications provided by SCTP. Note that other IP protocols may
also be effected by this attack.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
5. Bombing attack (amplification) 1
The bombing attack is a method to get a server to amplify packets to
an innocent victim.
5.1 Attack details
This attack is performed by setting up an association with a peer and
listing the victims IP address in the INIT's list of addresses.
After the association is setup, the attacker makes a request for a
large data transfer. After making the request the attacker does not
acknowledge data sent to it. This then causes the server to
re-transmit the data to the alternate address i.e. that of the
victim. After waiting an appropriate time period the attacker
acknowledges the data for the victim. At some point the attackers
address is considered unreachable since only data sent to the victims
address is acknowledged. At this point the attacker can send
strategic acknowledgments so that the server continues to send data
to the victim.
5.2 Errata
This attack depends on a number of circumstances:
1) The victim must NOT support SCTP, otherwise it would respond with
an OOTB abort.
2) The attacker must time its sending of acknowledgments correctly in
order to get its address into the failed state and the victims
address as the only valid alternative.
3) The attacker must guess TSN values that are accepted by the
receiver once the bombing begins since it must acknowledge packets
it no longer is seeing.
5.3 Counter measure
The current SCTP-IG makes two changes to prevent this attack. First
it details out proper handling of ICMP messages. With SCTP the ICMP
messages provide valuable clues to the SCTP stack that can be
verified with the tags for authenticity. Proper handling of an ICMP
protocol unreachable (or equivalent) would cause the association
setup by the attacker to be immediately failed upon the first
retransmission to the victims address.
The second change made in the newest SCTP-IG is the requirement that
no address that is not CONFIRMED is allowed to have DATA chunks sent
to it. This prevents the switch-over to the alternate address from
occurring even when ICMP messages are lost in the network and
prevents any DATA chunks from being sent to any other destination
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
other then the attacker itself.
An SCTP implementation should abort the association if it receives a
SACK acknowledging a TSN which has not been sent. This makes TSN
guessing for the attacker quite hard because if the attacker
acknowledges one TSN too fast the association will be aborted.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
6. Bombing attack (amplification) 2
This attack allows an attacker to use an arbitrary SCTP endpoint to
send multiple packets to a victim in response to one packet.
6.1 Attack details
The attacker sends an INIT listing multiple IP addresses of the
victim in the INIT's list of addresses to an arbitrary endpoint.
Optionally it request a long cookie life time. Upon reception of the
INIT-ACK it stores the cookie and sends it back to the other
endpoint. When the other endpoint receives the COOKIE it will send
back a COOKIE-ACK to the attacker and up to Max.Burst HEARTBEATS to
the victim('s) (to confirm addresses). The victim responds with
ABORTs or ICMP messages resulting in the removal of the TCB at the
other endpoint. The attacker can now resend the stored cookie as
long as it is valid and this will again result in up to Max.Burst
HEARTBEATs sent to the victim('s).
6.2 Errata
The multiplication factor is limited by the number of addresses of
the victim and of the end point Max.Burst. Also the shorter the
cookie life time is, the earlier the attacker has to go through the
initial stage of sending an INIT instead of the just sending the
COOKIE. It should also be noted that the attack is more effective if
large HEARTBEATs are used for path confirmation.
6.3 Counter measure
To limit the effectiveness of this attack and end point should
1) not allow very large cookie lifetimes, even if they are requested.
2) not use larger Max.Burst parameter values than recommended or
alternatively only send one CONFIRMATION Heartbeat per RTT. Note
that an endpoint may decide to send only one Heartbeat per RTT
instead of the maximum (i.e. Max.Burst). An endpoint that
chooses this approach will however slow down detection of
endpoints camping on valid addresses.
3) not use large HEARTBEATs for path confirmation.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
7. Association redirection
This attack allows an attacker to mis-setup an association to a
different endpoint.
7.1 Attack details
The attacker sends an INIT sourced from port 'X' and directed towards
port 'Y'. When the INIT-ACK is returned the attacker sends the
COOKIE-ECHO chunk and either places a different destination or source
port in the SCTP common header i.e. X+1 or Y+1. This then set's up
the association with possibly other endpoints.
7.2 Errata
This attack depends on the failure of an SCTP implementation to store
and verify the ports within the COOKIE structure.
7.3 Counter measure
This attack is easily defeated by an implementation including the
ports of both the source and destination within the COOKIE. When the
COOKIE is returned if the source and destination ports do not match
those within the COOKIE chunk, the SCTP implementation silently
discards the invalid COOKIE.
8 References
[1] Aura, T., Nikander, P. and G. Camarillo, "Effects of Mobility
and Multihoming on Transport-Layer Security", December 2003.
[2] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Randall R. Stewart
Cisco Systems, Inc.
4785 Forest Drive
Suite 200
Colubmia, SC 29206
USA
Phone: +1-815-477-2127
EMail: rrs@cisco.com
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
Michael Tuexen
Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCTP Security Threats September 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Stewart, et al. Expires March 17, 2005 [Page 14]